The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-02-08
Mr.. SECRETARY INNING
SUBMITS HIS VIEWS UPON THE
RETALIATION BILLS
or the House and Senate TO the
House Committee on foreign
Affairs.


Manning has sent to Mr.. Perry Bel.
mont, chairman OF the House Com.
miltee on Foreign Affairs, a long and
carefully prepared reply to the re-
quest of that committee for his views
with regard to the House and Senate
retaliation bills and for any suggee-
tions that he may desire to make with
reference thereto.
The Secretary divides the subject 10
be considered into two parts. first, the
fishing rights Of the United States, and
second, the commercial rights of
United States vessels in Canadian
ports. The rights of the former class,
he saye, are defined by the treaties OF
1888 aud 1918, and Eve do not ask
either of Great Britain or Canada any
other rights or liberties Of taking. dry
ing or curing fish than thoae stipu-
lated in such treaties"
''In respect to the commercial priv.
legss for our fishing vessels in Cana
dian ports, the situation is otherwise.
Up 10 President Jackson's procla-
nation Of October 5, 1880, this Gov
eminent had no commercial privi-
legee for its vessels in Canadian ports.
We had such privileges as coonists !;
We lost them rs colonists we Tegained
them in 1880 by an arrangement Of
legislation finally concerned with
Great Britain, which was the result of
an international understanding, that
was in effect, a though not technically,
treaty"
The Secretary then reviews at some
length the history of the relations be-
tween the Governments of the United
States and Great Britain in this respect
from 1888 to 1880.
II am not aware" the Secretary
says, "of any treaty, excepting the
fishing clauses OF the treaty OF 1918
and the treaty Of 1871, or of any rule
If International law binding on the
United S ates which now constrains
Great Britain to commercial inter-
course with ourselves in Canadian
ports, and from the point of view OF
this department Great Britain can, if
she deems for her interest or necessary
for her safety, retreat from the under.
standings aud agreements of 1880.
Whether such retreat therefrom is to
be deemed by US an unfriendly act
will depend on its motives and en-
viroument. 10 be sure, the ar
raDgemen OF 1880 was not in
technical sense a treaty from
the engagements of which neither
party can withdraw without the
consent of the other smicably OBJ
tanned, but it was to be rule for two
powerful States. 1t was q compact
representing the will and opinion of
each. II was deliberate information
al act. 1t was bargain in which one
government bought privilege at the
price of an equivalent given to the
other. 1t was contract solemniz sd
and attested by the law making in
stead OF the treaty making power of
the two nations. What we are now
confronted by ia the royal assent, given
by the Queen.in council on November
26, 1885, to the Canadian act entitled
An act further to amend the act re-
stricting fisheries by foreign vessels.
1t begins by reciting that it is 'Exps-
uient for the more effectual protection
of the inshore fisheries OF Canada
against intrusion by foreigners.
The offensive Specification of
that law is in the fact that
by (what assume is law the statute
estab ishing the Canadian Union, the
Governor General must, according TO
his discretion, but gu jsct t. the
Queens Instructions, further declare
that be sssents in the Queens name
to bill passed by the houses of the
Canadian Parliament, or that he with
holds the Queens assent, or that he
reserves the bill for the signif alton
of the Queens pleasure. The LAST
named alternative PHRASE was adopted
in dealing with the Canadian laws OF
1886, which peremptorily closes Cana
dian ports tn our fishing vessels elk
ing trade. 1t empowers any of the
therein designated officials to bring
to aud search any American vessel
being within any Canadian border or
lowering in B i.ish waters. This is
a revival in Canada OF the theory OF
the ancient British towering ast,
long ago repe aled in the mother coun-
try. II the search prescribed and au-
thorizsd be of fishing vessel loading
in prohibited place and fairly sus-
pected Of preparing thereto fishing
violation of law, such search is fairly
and reasonably made, may be toler-
sted. Oar own customs law pre-
scribes and authorizes similar search
of foreign vessels even four leagues
from our coast. But the Canadian act
thus having the royal approval, was
intended, as has been openly
avowed, TO forfeit any American
fishing vessel which is found
having entered Canadian waters or
the port Of Halifax to bay ice, bait or
other articles, or for any purpose other
than shelter, wood or water; the plea
is hat the treaty of 1878 permits and
stipulRtes for such legi That
we deny, and reply that such le2isls-
ton is a repeal and annullment by
England of the arrangement made in
1880, and to that repeal we are EMIT ed
to respond by similar repeal of our
own law, and by a refusal hereafter,
and while debate or negotiation goes
on, to confer hospitality, or any priv
ileges whatever in our ports on boats
or vessels of any sort. A violation OF
comfy may be looked upon as an I'M
frieni ly act, but not cause for Just
war. England may judge for herself
of the nature and ex ent Of The comfy
and courtesy she will show
to us. Iu the present case we
do not propose retaliation, but simply
respond. We, too, suspend comfy
and hospitality, And now comes the
question, what shall be the character
and limitations OF the Ieaponse2 Shall
we only exclude Canadian fishers, or
such fish and all Canadian vessels, or
both Of them, and all merchandise
coming from Cane ds by any sort of q
vehicle, including the vehicle? Under
what conditions can negotiations 90
on with the least injury to ourselves,
our dignity and self respect? can
not believe that the government at
London will persist in its present
course unless inspired for some occult
reason by purpose to break friendly
relations with ourselves, or unless un-
der the will and at the mercy of its
colony"
The Secretary then considers the
nnantiOn m n ethar nr nat a.t;oIo 90 nf